MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616126084 · doi:10.5194/acp-17-15225-2017

An evaluation of three methods for measuring black carbon in Alert, Canada

2017· article· en· W2616126084 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sangeeta Sharma, W. R. Leaitch, Lin Huang, Daniel Veber, Felicia Kolonjari, Wendy Zhang, Sarah Hanna, Allan K. Bertram, J. A. Ogren

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsAethalometerCarbon blackSootIncandescenceEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesAtmosphere (unit)Carbon fibersCalibrationMeteorologyChemistryPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Absorption of sunlight by black carbon (BC) warms the atmosphere, which may be important for Arctic climate. The measurement of BC is complicated by the lack of a simple definition of BC and the absence of techniques that are uniquely sensitive to BC (e.g., Petzold et al., 2013). At the Global Atmosphere Watch baseline observatory in Alert, Nunavut (82.5° N), BC mass is estimated in three ways, none of which fully represent BC: conversion of light absorption measured with an Aethalometer to give equivalent black carbon (EBC), thermal desorption of elemental carbon (EC) from weekly integrated filter samples to give EC, and measurement of incandescence from the refractory black carbon (rBC) component of individual particles using a single particle soot photometer (SP2). Based on measurements between March 2011 and December 2013, EBC and EC are 2.7 and 3.1 times higher than rBC, respectively. The EBC and EC measurements are influenced by factors other than just BC, and higher estimates of BC are expected from these techniques. Some bias in the rBC measurement may result from calibration uncertainties that are difficult to estimate here. Considering a number of factors, our best estimate of BC mass in Alert, which may be useful for evaluation of chemical transport models, is an average of the rBC and EC measurements with a range bounded by the rBC and EC combined with the respective measurement uncertainties. Winter-, spring-, summer-, and fall-averaged (± atmospheric variability) estimates of BC mass in Alert for this study period are 49 ± 28, 30 ± 26, 22 ± 13, and 29 ± 9 ng m−3, respectively. Average coating thicknesses estimated from the SP2 are 25 to 40 % of the 160–180 nm diameter rBC core sizes. For particles of approximately 200–400 nm optical diameter, the fraction containing rBC cores is estimated to be between 10 and 16 %, but the possibility of smaller undetectable rBC cores in some of the particles cannot be excluded. Mass absorption coefficients (MACs) ± uncertainty at 550 nm wavelength, calculated from light absorption measurements divided by the best estimates of the BC mass concentrations, are 8.0 ± 4.0, 8.0 ± 4.0, 5.0 ± 2.5 and 9.0 ± 4.5 m2 g−1, for winter, spring, summer, and fall, respectively. Adjusted to better estimate absorption by BC only, the winter and spring values of MACs are 7.6 ± 3.8 and 7.7 ± 3.8 m2 g−1. There is evidence that the MAC values increase with coating thickness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations105
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207